In article <87wudywciu.fsf@becket.becket.net>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu> writes:
>
>> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
>> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
>> "technical functionality" of the work, whether the work is a program
>> or documentation: he writes
>
> The problem is that the requirement to add a political essay *is* a
> restriction on the technical part. The technical part has one little
> bit that reaches out and grasps onto the nontechnical essay. And that
> one little grommet to which the nontechnical essay is attached is an
> uneditable part of the technical part.
Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position
above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that
RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to
convince.)
Peace,
Dylan